I think “if you’re not going to spend your money and time more morally, then you’re morally obligated to have children whenever they are able to” is a view that it would probably be damaging to publicly endorse.
True, and it’s worth breaking down what might be publcally damaging:
the demandingness—that would take a lot of work, and people dislike being told they’re immoral for not doing anything
the hypocrisy—if you believed that EAs were exempt from this obligation
But we shouldn’t let considerations of what is politically correct affect what we believe. We should try to believe that which is true.
We might be worried about how the moral uncertainty argument applies in other cases. For example, homosexual acts
I’m not sure why this would be a worry. Yes, moral uncertainty arguments might contradict our prior beliefs. But what is the point of considering new arguments if not to change our minds? We shouldn’t expect novel arguments to always yield reassuringly early-21st-century-liberal conclusions. (I say this as someone who believes gay marriage is probably a good thing).
We might be worried about how the moral uncertainty argument applies in other cases. For example, homosexual acts
Actually, I’d like to amend my response here. I think there is a clear division between aborting fetuses and homosexuality here. There are strong non-religious arguments for its being wrong to abort a baby, but not very many at all for homosexuality being wrong. It seems that most of the disagreement about homosexuality comes from disagreement about whether Islam is true, which is a factual disagreement, not a moral disagreement. As such, moral uncertainty is much more important for the (im)morality of aborting fetuses than for homosexuality.
True, and it’s worth breaking down what might be publcally damaging:
the demandingness—that would take a lot of work, and people dislike being told they’re immoral for not doing anything
the hypocrisy—if you believed that EAs were exempt from this obligation
But we shouldn’t let considerations of what is politically correct affect what we believe. We should try to believe that which is true.
I’m not sure why this would be a worry. Yes, moral uncertainty arguments might contradict our prior beliefs. But what is the point of considering new arguments if not to change our minds? We shouldn’t expect novel arguments to always yield reassuringly early-21st-century-liberal conclusions. (I say this as someone who believes gay marriage is probably a good thing).
Actually, I’d like to amend my response here. I think there is a clear division between aborting fetuses and homosexuality here. There are strong non-religious arguments for its being wrong to abort a baby, but not very many at all for homosexuality being wrong. It seems that most of the disagreement about homosexuality comes from disagreement about whether Islam is true, which is a factual disagreement, not a moral disagreement. As such, moral uncertainty is much more important for the (im)morality of aborting fetuses than for homosexuality.